### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A U G U ST 09, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 13660

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 0 3 0 5 - C R - T - 1 7 T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G E R A R D O A L E G R I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 04- 13756

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 0 3 0 5 - C R - T - 1 7 - T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s W I L L I A M C U E R O M O S Q U E R A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.2 ________________________ N o. 04- 13826

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 0 3 0 5 - C R - T - 1 7 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N I B A L R E N T E R I A R E N T E R I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 04- 13872

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 0 3 0 5 - C R - T - 1 7 - T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O D O L F O C A N D E L O P E R L A Z A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.This casewas orig inally schedule d for oral argument, but argument was c ance lled 1 pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f). 3 ________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t9, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G e r a r do A l e gr i a , W i l l i a m C ue r o M os que r a , A ni ba l R e nt e r i a R e nt e r i a , a nd R odol f o C a nde l o P e r l a z a e a c h pl e a de d gui l ty t o c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a nd pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s or m ore of c ocai ne w hi l e on b oard a ves se l subj ec tt o t he j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of 46 U . S . C . § 1 90 3. E ac h d ef endantar gu es thatthe di stri ct c o u r t m a d e tw o e r r o r s in d e te r m in in g h is s e n te n c e : th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in f a i l i ng t o a ppl y a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2; a nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 (200 5). 1 T h i s i s th e seco n d t i m e th ese cases h av e b een b efo re th i s C o u rt . In th e fi rst a ppe a l , w hi c h w a s br oughtby the gove r nm e nt , w e va c a t e d the s e nt e nc e s of e a c h of4

the defendant s bec ause the di stri ctcourtappl i ed m i no r r ol e bas ed on i m prop er f a c t or s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l e gr i a , N o. 03- 11641 ( 11th C i r . M a r . 18, 2004) ( unpubl i s he d) . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tm i norr ol e r e duc t i ons w er e notw arra nt ed un der the pri nci pl es anno un ce d i n U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). E ac h d ef endantw as then s e n te n c e d to 1 3 5 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. T h e fact s, as reco u n t ed b y o u r p rev i o u s o p i n i o n i n th i s case, are as fo l l o w s: O n J ul y 25, 2001, D e f

e nda nt s w e r e a boa r d a “ go- f a s t ” boa ti n the E a s te r n P a c if

ic O c e a n o f

f th e c o a s t o f

C o lo m b ia in in te r n a tio n a l w a te r s . M e m be r s of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s C oa s tG ua r d onboa r d the U ni t e d S t a t e s N a vy v e s s e l U S S M o n s o o n o b s e r v e d a n d s o u g h t to a p p r e h e n d th e s p e e d b o a t. W hi l e the c a pt a i n pi l ot i ng the go- f a s tboa ta t t e m pt e d t o e va de the N a vy v e s s e l, D e f

e n d a n ts b e g a n to th r o w ite m s o v e rb o a r d . A f te ra b o u t a f

if ty m ile chas e, on e of the go -f

as tbo at ’ s e ng i nes bl ew ou tand t he C oastG uard s u c c e s s f u lly s to p p e d th e v e s s e l. W h e n th e c r e w m e m b e r s d id n o t r e s p o n d to th e C o astG u ard ’ s q u est i o n s reg ard i n g th e n at i o n al i ty o f th e v essel , th e C o ast G uard bo ar ded t he bo atand d et ai ned t he cr ew . A l tho ug h t he cr ew m em bers then ass er t ed thatthe spee d b oatw as re gi st er ed i n G uat em al a, G uat em al an offi ci al s deni ed thi s c l ai m . T he go -f as tbo atw as there fore foun d t o b e a st at el ess v essel su b

j ectt o th e j u ri sd i ct i o n o f th e U n i t ed S t at es. T h e C o ast G uard then returned t o t he ar ea w here the cr ew m em bers w er e obser ved thr ow i ng i t e m s ove rboa r d, a nd the y r e c ove r e d a bout1, 513 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne . A f

t e rr e c ove r i ng the c oc a i ne , the C oa s tG ua r d r e tur ne d t o the gof a s t b o a t, d e te r m in e d it w a s a h a z a r d to n a v ig a tio n , a n d s a n k th e v e s s e l. A l e gr i a , N o. 03- 11641. Ea c h d e f e n d a n tc o n t e n d s th a th e w a s a mi n o rp a r t i c i p a n ti n th e d ru g s c h e me a nd, the r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by nota ppl y i ng a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on5

pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i on r e ga r di ng w he the ra de f e nda nti s e l i gi bl e f

ora r ol e r e duc t i on i s r e vi e w e d onl y f or c le a re r r o r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). A d i stri ctco u rtcan ap p l y a tw o -p o i n tred u ct i o n t o a d efen d an t ’ s o ffen se le v e l if th a t d e f e n d a n t is a “m in o r ” p a r tic ip a n t in th e o f f e n s e . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) . A defe nd anti s am i no r par t i ci panti f he “ pl ay s aparti n com m i t t i ng the offens e that m ak es h i m su b st an t i al l y l ess cu l p ab l e th an th e av erag e p art i ci p an t [, ] . . . b u t[h i s] r o le c o u ld n o t b e d e s c r ib e d a s m in im a l.” I d . c m t. n n .3 ( A ) & 5 . T w o b a s ic p r in c ip le s g u id e th e d e te r m in a tio n o f w h e th e ra d e f

e n d a n t s h o u ld r e c e iv e a r o le in the of f e ns e r e duc t i on: “ [ F ] i r s t , the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the r e l e va ntc onduc tf or w hi ch she has been hel d acc ou nt abl e a tse nt enci ng , and, se cond , her r ol e a s c o m p a r e d t o th a to f

o th e rp a r t i c i p a n t s i n h e rr e l e v a n tc o n d u c t . ” R o d r i g u e z De V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t940. N on e of the defendant s has show n t hathi s r ol e i n t he re l evantcond uctw as

“ m i no r. ” T he m ostpers uasi ve pi ec e of e vi dence agai nstal l four of them i s the fa ct tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s C oa s tG ua r d r e c ove r e d appr oxi m a t e l y 1, 513 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , va l ue d a tove rtw e nty m i l l i on dol l a r s , f r om the s m a l l boa ton w hi c h the de f e nda nt s w e r e c r e w m e m be r s . B e i ng a c r e w m e m be ron a s m a l l boa tc a r r y i ngAlegria did not specif ically argue the B ooker issue in his initial brief to this court. He 2 did, however , attempt to adopt the arguments raised by his co-def

endants through Fe d. R. App. 6 s uc h a l a r ge qua nt i ty of

c oc a i ne i s a f

a c ttha tw e i ghs he a vi l y a ga i ns ta m i nor p a r tic ip a tio n f

in d in g . I d . a t 9 4 3 . N or has a ny of the defendant s dem on stra t ed thathi s r ol e w as m i no r a s c o m p a r e d to th e o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h h e w a s h e ld a c c o u n t a b l e . A l e g r i a s e r v e d a s th e me c h a n i c f o rth e g o - f

a s tb o a t . H i s r o l e b e c a me p a r t i c u l a r l y i mp o r t a n ta s h e w a s r e q u i r e d t o r e p a i rs o me me c h a n i c a l p r o b l e ms dur i ng the tr i p. M os que r a a nd P e r l a z a he l pe d pi l otthe go- f a s tboa t , t a ki ng tur ns w i th s om e of

the othe rde f

e nda nt s . R e nt e r i a a l s o he l pe d na vi ga t e a nd pi l otthe gof a s tboa tdur i ng the drug e xc ur s i on. T e s t i m ony dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng es t abl i shed thatexperi ence d m ar i ners such as M osqu er a, P er l az a, and R ent er i a a re e s s e n tia l to a m a r itim e d ru g tr ip s u c h a s th is o n e . B as ed on these fa ct s, no ne of the defendant s has es t abl i shed thathe w as

“ subst ant i al l y l es s c ul pabl e than t he avera ge part i ci pant ” i n t hi s drug v enture in v o lv in g 1 ,5 1 3 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e . S e e U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) c m t. n .3 ( A ) . N o n e , th e r e f

o r e , h a s d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e r r e d in d e te r m in in g th a t h e w a s n o t e n title d to a m in o rr o le a d ju s tm e n t. Th e d e f e n d a n t s n e x ta r g u e th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te r r e d u n d e rth e Su p r e me C our t ’ s B ooke rde c i s i on. T he y f i r s ta r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d a 2P. 2 8( i) . A lth ough h edid no t f oll owto t hele tter o ur

11 th C ir . R. 28 -1 (f

), wefind it a pp ropriate un der t he sec irc ums tanc e s to c on sid e r A le gri a ’s B oo ker a rgument p roperly

raise d. Se eF e d. R. App. P. 2 (“[A] court of appe als may —to expedite its decision or f or other g ood cause—suspend any provision of these r

ules . . . .”); c f. United States v. Gray, 626 F.2d 494, 497 ( 5th Cir. 1980) (findingg ood causeto relax the provisions of Rule 28(i) in order to avoid the anomalous situation of reversingonly some defendants’ convic tions where all the defendants suffered f rom the same error). 7 B oo ker c on st i tut i on al error by e nh anci ng thei r s ent ence s bas ed on fa ct s thatw er e ne i the rf ound by a j ur y nora dm i t t e d by the m . I n pa r t i c ul a r , the de f e nda nt s c ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te nga ge d i n e xtr a - ve r di c tf a c t f i ndi ng w i th r e ga r d t o the qu ant i ty of drugs used t o cal cul at e thei r off ense l evel s. T hey a ss er tthatthe di stri ct c o u r t d u r in g s e n te n c in g s h o u ld h a v e b e e n lim ite d to th e f iv e k ilo g r a m s c h a r g e d in the i nd i ctm entor, atm ost , the on e hun dred ki l og ra m s di sc usse d d uri ng the pl ea c o llo q u y . E a c h o f th e d e f e n d a n ts , h o w e v e r , a d m itte d th a t th e d ru g q u a n tity in v o lv e d in the drug run w a s 1, 513 ki l ogr a m s . T he y di d s o i n or de rt o a va i l the m s e l ve s of the s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on. T he de f e nda nt s di d notobj e c tt o the 1, 513 ki l ogr a m drug qu ant i ty a s pre se nt ed i n t he P S I a nd , as a r es ul t , they a re deem ed t o h ave a dm i t t ed i t . S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T h ere i s, there fore , no B oo ker c on st i tut i on al error. N on ethel es s, beca use the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d t he defendant s und era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , i thas c om m i t t ed a B oo ker s t atut ory e rr or. Id. at 13 30 –3 1. B ec ause ea ch defendantm ade a t i m el y obj ec t i on before the di stri ct8

court , w e r evi ew the B oo ker s t atut ory e rr ors t o d et erm i ne w hether they w er e harm l es s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A B o o k e rs ta tu to r y e r r o r“is h a r m le s s if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in th e ir e nt i r e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e r r ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e nt e nc e , orha d but ve r y s l i ghte f

f e c t . I f one c a n s a y w i th f

a i ra s s ur a nc e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s not s ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e r r or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be a f f i r m e d e ve n though the r e w a s e r r or . ” I d. a t1292 ( quot a t i ons a nd m a r ks om i t t e d) . T he bur de n i s on the gove r nm e ntt o s how tha tthe e r r orw a s ha r m l e s s . I d. T he go vernm enthas notm eti t s burden as t o any of the defendant s. Ithas po i nt ed t o n ot hi ng i n t he re cord i nd i ca t i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave gi ven these defe nd ant s the sa m e s ent ence had i tbeen op er at i ng un der a n adv i sory g u id e lin e s s y s te m . VA C AT E D a n d R E MAND E D.